Why I Am Not Polyamorous, But You Might Want to Be, Part 3

In part one of this series I explained how I came to study polyamory and why it did not work for my ex and me. Part two of this series provides details about why I do not choose to be polyamorous now. In this final installment, I explain what kinds of relationships I do have, and why.

Monogamish Relationship with Kira

Popularized within the last few years by Dan Savage, a well-known author and podcaster, monogamish relationships are those in which the couple is primarily monogamous but allows varying degrees of sexual contact with others. Rules structuring these external sexual contacts vary by couple, ranging from only allowing one-night stands (no second time with the same person) or only specific kinds of sexual activity (ie. kissing and groping is OK but no intercourse) to time limits (no more than a week) or location limitations (not in the couple’s home or only when people are traveling).

Together for almost three years, Kira and I have rarely availed ourselves of our relationship flexibility. Too busy to date and too tired to have sex even with each other sometimes, neither of us are out looking to hook up. If fleeting romance or flirting finds us, we have the flexibility and trust that allows us to have “little flings” with others. What exactly constitutes a “little fling” is not completely clear, as we have rarely tested the boundaries of our agreement and are waiting to see how things evolve. So far, making relationship decisions in response to shifting circumstances is working great for us, in sharp contrast to the endless discussions I had with Rick making rules for imagined situations that turned out completely differently in real life.

Polyaffective Relationship with Rick

Polyaffective relationships are connected by emotional intimacy but not sexuality, either because they have never been sexually engaged or because the sexual portion of the relationship has waned and they remain emotionally intimate. These relationships tend to form either between people who become close because they share a lover but are not lovers themselves, or between people who used to be lovers but are no longer. One common polyaffective configuration is a woman with two male partners who are emotionally close but not lovers. A quieter version of poly identity, polyaffectivity can be more durable and flexible than its romantic counterpart—often able to supersede, coexist with, and outlast sexual interaction.

While Rick and I are no longer in a romantic relationship, we are still in each other’s lives because we co-parent our children. “Splitting up” romantically helped to lessen some of our tension, and over the last eight years that we have been separated I have come to like him a lot better again. Things have not always been smooth, and during several rough patches we have argued over what happened in the past and sometimes money – much like other couples who split up. A big difference for us is that we followed the poly break up method that entailed lots of communication and trying diligently to work out our problems. When it became clear to me that the relationship was no longer workable, I told him that I wanted a divorce before doing anything that would spoil my ability to look him in the eye. Because we tried to work things out in a way that took each other’s feelings in to account, we are much less angry at each other now than if we had lied to, cheated on, and betrayed each other. Now we can have a congenial dinner together, chat about the kids, and share holidays together. Rick and Kira get along great, and the kids have three adults in two households who love them, and whom they can count on for emotional and financial support, rides, advice, and help with homework.

Why does it matter?

Some of the folks who read this series and find out that I do not identify as polyamorous will decide that my research is more accurate and less biased because I am not poly myself. Others will see my research as biased because I “failed” as both a monogamist and polyamorist, and my current relationship allows me to occasionally snog other people beside my partner. In both cases, I would encourage these readers to question the underlying assumptions which frame the idea that if someone is a member of a group then they are less able to speak about that group – especially if the group itself is seen as different or somehow less powerful than other groups in the social context.

If we follow this idea that people are biased about their own groups to its logical conclusion but apply it to socially normative groups, it means that: only people who have never married should be allowed to make decisions about marriages and divorces; only child-less (or childfree) people should be allowed to comment on parenting; and only gay people should be taken seriously when discussing heterosexual relationships. When the power-relationships are reversed, it quickly becomes clear that the idea is simply ridiculous.

Yes, I have noticed the same. It is often conveyed as if the non-monogamous relationship is morally superior. Yet the arguments that are "pro" come across as trite and sound like they are written by "adults" stuck in the eternally-confused, teenaged mode, IMHO.

My first post 'Why not?' was addressed to Anonymous.
This one is addressed to Anonymous Too.
Your judgements 'morally superior', '"adults" stuck in the eternally-confused, teenaged mode' are merely your judgements and projections. Other people may experienced the posts quite differently.
And in particular, I wonder where your '"adults" stuck in the eternally-confused, teenaged mode' comes from.
I guess it is the "adult" you who, as a keen psychologist, makes prescient observations about the 'eternally-confused, teenaged mode' people who hold the views you find strange. And, of course, this clearly is especially a judgement around Elisabeth Sheff. She and her ilk are immoral and disgusting perverts who are a danger to pubic morality (see, I can't even spell).

I have no investment in people becoming polyamorous and have repeatedly said in several posts that polyamory is not for everyone. Why do you feel pressured to become polyamorous simply because other people are talking about it as an option for them?

I think some people protest on fake moral grounds because they're secretly envious. As a man with a life-long high libido married to a wife whose libido has diminished more than I care to think about, I have often fantasized about such relationships, and watched some of the polygamy shows in TV with fascination. With enough wives, it's a fun fantasy to imagine that there would always be at least one who would be interested in sex. Though I understand that that's often not the way it works in reality!

I've been poly since the 80's, before the word existed, there are as many types of poly relationships as there are poly people.

Everyone makes rookie mistakes on their early forays into poly, just as everyone makes rookie relationship mistakes when they are teenagers. We need to stop having unrealistic expectations of freshman poly. I would much rather date someone who's been burned than a newb because it takes getting burned to learn to steer clear of the many drama llamas chasing the NRE high.

I'm weary of nearly every poly discussion being about sex and jealousy, because for the majority of poly families I know, it's not an issue. That kind of possessive thinking is the purview of the monogamous or the poly freshmen. In experienced ethical poly, you own up to your sh@@ and you deal with it. You communicate, go to therapy, do whatever it takes. Transparency all around. What is far more interesting to polys I know: parenting, time management, planning for retirement, how to find a vehicle that everyone can fit into....

When I was part of a relationship that spanned 3 houses, you know what my biggest concern was....trying to keep all 3 adequately stocked with toilet paper. Smartphones are the best thing that ever happened to poly. You want to see a bunch of polys light up? Ask us about our online calendar/task mgt apps...

I don't really understand why poly should be a controversial topic in the USA. There are millions and millions of married people in the USA right now who are juggling multiple sexual partners. The vast majority of them are secretly cheating on their spouses, while only a small number of them, including swingers and polys, are doing it openly and honestly with the goal of ensuring that everyone is happy and enjoying themselves.

Given these two groups of people, I know who I'd prefer as friends, and which ones are the hypocrites.

It really does seem silly that many people have multiple sexual partners, even simultaneously while in college, then get married and cheat on their spouses. And with most marriages not even lasting 12 years, they then marry another person -- and yet these people actually call themselves "monogamous"! And some of these people have step kids shuffling between households just as much as any poly family I've ever heard of. And the biggest irony is that in some cases, these "monogamous" people have actually had far more sexual partners than poly people! But, oh, the monogamous people are still morally superior. Hilarious!

And having seen serial monogamy up close among friends' parents and in my own family and in-law parents (divorce, 2nd marriages), the specter of parents who are still amicably involved together to coordinate kids, while sporting new sexual partners who are also involved with yet another set of ex's, is very similar to any description of poly relationships I've heard of, especially to kids who really couldn't care less about what all these parents actually do behind closed doors.

Sheff sounds defensive in this last post. As if people have already been accusing her or other poly researchers of not being credible or producing biased material because they have experience with being poly. I kinda see her point. But I think it's too soon to claim a poly or past poly researcher researching polyamory would be just the same as a married woman researching married women. Marriage or mainstream topics generally don't come with the same baggage, or set of cultural criticisms that polyamory does. The poly community are on the defensive right now, they're looking to legitimize their lifestyle choice so that they can be accepted. That puts them in a slightly more precarious situation when conducting research on polyamory, leading to a greater possibility of them loosing their objectivity in favor of producing results that support their interests. This would be true for any new wave or movement in counter-culture, it always has been. In the end, credibility probably won't come until there is a balance of non-poly researchers researching polyamory and poly researchers doing the same. Scholarship is an ongoing, endless conversation. Right now, this wave of conversation has only barely started. It seems to be gaining some momentum in mainstream culture, but I honestly think it will be poly people themselves who will kill that momentum with their self-serving, ethical superiority. That's what turns me off of it. It's not so much the lifestyle. It's the people who partake in it. I'm sure not all of them are the same, but the one's who make themselves heard online and in the movement in general are a huge turnaway. A bit like the fellow Mike commenting in our thread here. I realize Anonymous Too didn't share a lot of "nice" in their post either, but if you want anyone to take you seriously, start combating irrational judgement with a more calm, sound, strong rebuttal. Otherwise, you do just sound like a cranky defensive teenager.

Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you. I appreciate Mike’s response when he said that poly researchers are no more biased than other researchers and that bias is a feature of human consciousness -- great point and well said Mike.

I also agree with you, Anon, that I could come across as defensive, because I have learned to anticipate attack through direct experience. The concept of polyamory makes some people very upset, and some of them vehemently attack on professional and even personal levels. Rooted in what scholars call "sex negativity," there is a sense of disdain for sex researchers in professional academic associations, and it come across as discriminatory treatment -- greater difficulties in publishing, added challenges in the research process (such as IRB research protocol approval), enduring colleagues' speculative stares and sometimes outright hostility or even inappropriate questions and behavior -- it is not easy to be a sex researcher in the Puritanical United States. Such stigma and discrimination famously hounded Kinsey to death -- lucky for me it has been nothing near what he endured. As Kinsey's intellectual great-grand-daughter, I have had some degree of organizational and institutional support precisely because he and his colleagues paved the way for me to do this kind of research. Even with that support, I have been attacked in so many settings and by so many different people, that I can be defensive about studying polyamory. With good reason.

You said that polyamory "seems to be gaining some momentum in mainstream culture, but I honestly think it will be poly people themselves who will kill that momentum with their self-serving, ethical superiority. That's what turns me off of it. It's not so much the lifestyle. It's the people who partake in it. I'm sure not all of them are the same, but the one's who make themselves heard online and in the movement in general are a huge turnaway." I have heard that critique before, and think it has some merit. Others have also mentioned a kind of snooty or self-satisfied attitude some polys have, as if they are so personally evolved as to release jealousy and exist at a higher vibration of love, or something equally nauseating.

Where specifically do you see that in my post? Is it the word "allow," as in my partner and I allow each other to have other partners? I intend no snootiness and attempt to write without it, but would be interested in seeing a specific turn of phrase that comes across as superior.

Elisabeth G'day
I was touched by your response.
Your poignant description of the difficulties sex researchers experience in their field hit home for me and I guess I better appreciate how often people's discomfort with confronting ideas are transmogrified into projective assumptions and ad hominem attacks. Your research and the challenging ideas you (and other bloggers on PT) offer, have got to be buttressed by huge amounts of courage and integrity.
I was also touched by what I experienced as a sanguine and totally open response by you to anonymous above. I have never felt 'snootiness' or 'superiority' in any of your posts.
On another point entirely, here comes a little 'ouch' from a pedantic (and possibly snooty) place.
Your correction: "In part one of this series I explained how I came to study polyamory and why it did not work for me and my ex" doesn't cut it either. Convention requires that when referring to a third party and to yourself, the third party is always referenced first. Thus it isn't correct to say "I and John went to town". It is always "John and I went to town". This convention applies to all noun cases and therefore your correction, properly, should read "In part one of this series I explained how I came to study polyamory and why it did not work for my ex and me".
(I enjoy your posts and am becoming more reconciled to gay marriage).
Mike

I DON'T at all get that you [Elizabeth] have some sort of "superior" attitude about polyamorous relationships. Quite the OPPOSITE! Frankly, it's refreshing to hear someone speak in a fair & measured way---as well as, your observations that many of the issues that poly people face in their relationships are NOT so different than what monogamous people face:it's just that poly people may deal with those "relationship issues" FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE (and sometimes with a different set of "tools" than monogamous people due to EXPECTING some issues to come up that they will HAVE to deal with). I stumbled on to your blog but, have to say I appreciate it as real food for thought. Also: I'd never heard the term "unicorn" as label for single, bisexual woman ---HAHAH. So, now, I have a NEW identity I didn't even know I was! I guess the most accurate other 'label;' for me is Dan Savage's "monogamish" and to be fair I've got mixed feelings about poly relationships. On one hand, I very much have a LIVE & LET LIVE view of OTHER people's relationships. But, for myself, being in non-monogamous relationships has been a real trial. My former husband wanted an "open relationship" but, in the end it was about HIM being able to be with other women and his ongoing jealousy & accusations towards me (even without me acting on being with anyone else) made clear that I was SUPPOSED to be ONLY with him. That's been my primary experience with "poly": the double-standard from those who want multiple partners FOR THEMSELVES--but, to have a "primary partner" who is monogamous towards them---which came with a LOT of very CONTROLLING behaviors on his part. My female partners who wanted an open relationship were not much different in their EMOTION of jealousy--but, now I wonder if the real "problem" was that we didn't accept that jealous was inevitable & simply HAD to be directly addressed. After age 40, I made a decision to look for a monogamous partner because I jsut didn't want all the damn drama! But, I sometimes wonder if I wasn't being honest with myself (since it rarely felt ok to ask WHAT did I WANT? when it comes to this). Anyway--sorry this is so long!--thankyoufor your fine work in writing this blog. You are very accessible & sane & I think present issues of real value to ANY couple regardless of sexual oreintation or mono/poly/whatever in "style". THANKS! Keep up the good work.:-)

Hello Anonymous
Another anonymous! So many anonymice scurrying around and squeaking incessantly.
You wrote: "It's the people who partake in it. I'm sure not all of them are the same, but the one's who make themselves heard online and in the movement in general are a huge turnaway. A bit like the fellow Mike commenting in our thread here. "
Actually, I'm not poly at all. I'm in a happy monogamous 36 year-old marriage and feel quite blessed. So, no, I am not beating any drum here. I take the view that consenting adults should be free to live as they wish, mono, poly (gamous, gynous, androus), gay, bi, queer, lesbian, LGBT - ABCDEF... WXYZ in fact. My response to Anonymous Too had to do with his/her assumptions and projections which spoke more about him/her, rather than addressing the points raised in the original article.
Final point in Anonymous's point I would like to address. I read that you felt that poly researchers carry baggage and that therefore they 'loose' their objectivity. Apart from having loosed your dictionary, you have displayed your naïveté. Poly researches may be biased in their research, but no more so that any other researcher who has formed a judgement and then looks for the evidence. The main 'tell' in your post though, is your use of the word 'honestly' in your sentence about poly self-serving, ethical superiority.
Freud, the patriarchal 'discredited' old white male fart would have wondered where the 'self-serving, ethical superiority' really lay.
Honestly.

Hello Ms Sheff
I have seen no response by you to the short post by Matt C.
He has correctly noted a fundamental grammatical error made by you in your post.
I did not read it since it appears as a headnote to the actual post by you and, having read your previous posts, I did not read your headnote - I went straight to the content of your post.
I have reread it in full (including the headnote) and here is what you wrote in your headnote:
"In part one of this series I explained how I came to study polyamory and why it did not work for my ex and I. Part two of this series provides details about why I do not choose to be polyamorous now. In this final installment, I explain what kinds of relationships I do have, and why."
Have the courtesy of responding to Matt C who picked up your use of the nominative 'I', in place of the dative 'me', in your first sentence. Your sentence should have ended " ... why it did not work for my wife and me".